Climate change impacts on northern Australian rangeland livestock carrying capacity: a review of issues

Grazing is a major land use in Australia's rangelands. The 'safe' livestock carrying capacity (LCC) required to maintain resource condition is strongly dependent on climate. We reviewed: the approaches for quantifying LCC; current trends in climate and their effect on components of the grazing system; implications of the 'best estimates' of climate change projections for LCC; the agreement and disagreement between the current trends and projections; and the adequacy of current models of forage production in simulating the impact of climate change. We report the results of a sensitivity study of climate change impacts on forage production across the rangelands, and we discuss the more general issues facing grazing enterprises associated with climate change, such as 'known uncertainties' and adaptation responses (e.g. use of climate risk assessment). We found that the method of quantifying LCC from a combination of estimates (simulations) of long-term (>30 years) forage production and successful grazier experience has been well tested across northern Australian rangelands with different climatic regions. This methodology provides a sound base for the assessment of climate change impacts, even though there are many identified gaps in knowledge. The evaluation of current trends indicated substantial differences in the trends of annual rainfall (and simulated forage production) across Australian rangelands with general increases in most of western Australian rangelands ( including northern regions of the Northern Territory) and decreases in eastern Australian rangelands and south-western Western Australia. Some of the projected changes in rainfall and temperature appear small compared with year-to-year variability. Nevertheless, the impacts on rangeland production systems are expected to be important in terms of required managerial and enterprise adaptations. Some important aspects of climate systems science remain unresolved, and we suggest that a risk-averse approach to rangeland management, based on the 'best estimate' projections, in combination with appropriate responses to short-term (1-5 years) climate variability, would reduce the risk of resource degradation. Climate change projections - including changes in rainfall, temperature, carbon dioxide and other climatic variables - if realised, are likely to affect forage and animal production, and ecosystem functioning. The major known uncertainties in quantifying climate change impacts are: (i) carbon dioxide effects on forage production, quality, nutrient cycling and competition between life forms (e.g. grass, shrubs and trees); and (ii) the future role of woody plants including effects of. re, climatic extremes and management for carbon storage. In a simple example of simulating climate change impacts on forage production, we found that increased temperature (3 degrees C) was likely to result in a decrease in forage production for most rangeland locations (e. g. -21% calculated as an unweighted average across 90 locations). The increase in temperature exacerbated or reduced the effects of a 10% decrease/increase in rainfall respectively (-33% or -9%). Estimates of the beneficial effects of increased CO2 (from 350 to 650 ppm) on forage production and water use efficiency indicated enhanced forage production (+26%). The increase was approximately equivalent to the decline in forage production associated with a 3 degrees C temperature increase. The large magnitude of these opposing effects emphasised the importance of the uncertainties in quantifying the impacts of these components of climate change. We anticipate decreases in LCC given that the 'best estimate' of climate change across the rangelands is for a decline (or little change) in rainfall and an increase in temperature. As a consequence, we suggest that public policy have regard for: the implications for livestock enterprises, regional communities, potential resource damage, animal welfare and human distress. However, the capability to quantify these warnings is yet to be developed and this important task remains as a challenge for rangeland and climate systems science.

Wastewater remediation options for prawn farms - Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative 2002-04.

There are many potential bioremediation approaches that may be suitable for prawn farms in Queensland. Although most share generally accepted bioremediation principles, advocacy for different methods tends to vary widely. This diversity of approach is particularly driven by the availability and knowledge of functional species at different localities around the world. In Australia, little is known about the abilities of many native species in this regard, and translocation and biosecurity issues prevent the use of exotic species that have shown potential in other countries. Species selected must be tolerant of eutrophic conditions and ecological shifts, because prawn pond nutrient levels and pathways can vary with different assemblages of autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. Generally, they would be included in a constructed ecosystem because of their functional contributions to nutrient cycling and uptake, and to create nutrient sinks in forms of harvestable biomass. Wide salinity, temperature and water quality tolerances are also valuable attributes for selected species due to the sometimes-pronounced effects of environmental extremes, and to provide over-wintering options and adequate safety margins in avoiding mass mortalities. To practically achieve these bioremediation polycultures on a large scale, and in concert with the operations of a prawn farm, methods involving seed production, stock management, and a range of other farm engineering and product handling systems need to be reliably achievable and economically viable. Research funding provided by the Queensland Government through the Aquaculture Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) 2002-04 has enabled a number of technical studies into biological systems to treat prawn farm effluent for recirculation and improved environmental sustainability. AIDI bioremediation research in southern Queensland was based at the Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre (BIARC), and was conducted in conjunction with AIDI genetics and selection research, and a Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funded program (Coast and Clean Seas Project No.717757). This report compilation provides a summary of some of the work conducted within these programs.

Testing the effectiveness of the SKIM foam fractionator to reduce nutrient levels in prawn farm effluent

To experimentally investigate the effect of the “SKIM” mechanical foam fractionator on suspended material and the nutrient levels in prawn farm effluent, a series of standardised short-term treatments were applied to various effluent types in a static 10,000-litre water body. Prawn pond effluents were characterised by watercolour and dominance of phytoplankton species. Three effluent types were tested, namely 1) particulate-rich effluent with little apparent phytoplankton, 2) green mircoalgal bloom predominately made up of single celled phytoplankton, and 3) brown microalgal bloom with higher prevalence of diatoms. The effluent types were similar (P>0.05) in non-volatile particulate material, and nitrate/nitrite but varied from each other in the following ways: 1) The particulate-rich effluents were lower (P<0.05) in volatile solids (compared to brown blooms), total Kjeldahl nitrogen, dissolved organic nitrogen, dissolved organic phosphorus and chlorophyll a (compared to both green and brown blooms). 2) The brown blooms were higher (P<0.05) in ammonia (compared to green blooms), total nitrogen and total phosphorus (compared to both green and particulate-rich effluent), but were lower (P<0.05) in inorganic phosphorus (compared to both green and particulate-rich effluent). 3) The green blooms were higher (P<0.05) in dissolved (both organic and inorganic) phosphorus (compared to both brown and particulate-rich effluents). Although the effluent types varied significantly in these aspects the effect of the Skim treatment was similar for all parameters measured except total phosphorus. Bloom type and Skim-treatment period significantly (P<0.05) affected total Kjeldahl phosphorus concentrations. For all effluent types there was a continuous significant reduction (P<0.05) in total Kjeldahl phosphorus during the initial 6-hour treatment period. Levels of total suspended solids and volatile suspended solids in all effluent types were significantly (P<0.05) reduced in the first 2 hours but not thereafter. Non-volatile suspended solids were also significantly (P<0.05) reduced in the first 2 hours (30 to 40 % reduction) and a further 40% reduction occurred in the particulate-rich effluent over the next 2 hours. Mean values for total ammonia, dissolved organic nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a and dissolved organic or inorganic phosphorus levels were not significantly (P>0.05) affected by the Skim unit in any bloom type during the initial 6 hours of testing. Nevertheless, non-significant nitrogen reductions did occur. Foam production by the Skim unit varied with different blooms, resulting in different concentrate volumes and different end points for separate experiments. Concentrate volumes were generally high for the particulate-rich and green blooms (175 – 370 litres) and low for the brown blooms (25 – 80 litres). This was due to the low tendency of the brown bloom to produce foam. This generated higher nutrient concentrations in the associated condensed foam, but may have limited the treatment efficiency. The results suggest that in this application, the Skim unit did not remove micro-algae as effectively as was anticipated. However, it was effective at removing other suspended solids. Considering these attributes and the other uses of this machinery documented by the manufactures, the unit’s oxygenation mixing capacities coupled with inorganic solids removal may provide a suitable mechanism for construction of a continuously mixed bioreactor that utilises the filtration and profit making abilities of bivalves.

The critical period for weed control in dry-seeded rice

The critical crop-weed competition period in a dry-seeded rice system is an important consideration in formulating weed management strategies. Field experiments were conducted in the summer seasons of 2012 and 2013 at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India, to determine the extent of yield loss in two different rice cultivars (PR 114 and PR 115) with different periods of weed interference. Twelve weed control timings were used to identify critical periods of weed competition in dry-seeded rice. PR 114, a long-duration rice cultivar (145 d) having slower initial growth than PR 115 (125 d), was more prone to yield losses. In both years, 100% yield loss was observed where weeds were not controlled throughout the season. In weed-free plots, the grain yield of PR 114 was 6.39-6.80 t ha-1, for PR 115, it was 6.49-6.87 t ha-1. Gompertz and logistic equations fitted to yield data in response to increasing periods of weed control and weed interference showed that, PR 114 had longer critical periods than PR 115. Critical weed-free periods to achieve 95% of weed-free yield for PR 114 was longer than for PR 115 by 31 days in 2012 and 26 days in 2013. Weed infestation also influenced the duration of critical periods. Higher weed pressure in 2012 than in 2013 increased the duration of the critical period of crop-weed competition in that year. The identification of critical crop-weed competition periods for different cultivars will facilitate improved decision-making regarding the timing of weed control and the adoption of cultivars having high weed-suppressing abilities. This will also contribute to the development of integrated weed management in dry-seeded rice systems.